Face the facts. You are contradicting yourself. In one breath you say ninja are more than practitioners of ninjutsu but then you claim modern practitioners are ninja.

Find one place where I have ever stated being a modern practicioner of the art means you are a ninja. I have not said anything like that. The grandmasters of the bujinkan and genbukan both state themselves that they are ninja. I did not say practicioners of the arts are all ninja.

I don't get what there is to argue about this, I gave the proof, Hatsumi says he's a ninja, Tanemura says genbukan is a ninja group, that's just all there is to it- the argument was originally 'there are no more ninja'. The 2 grandmasters of ninjutsu traditions say there are, I provided written proof of that multiple times. End of argument. Normally I don't think things are ever so black and white but in this case it is.

The trouble is misinterpretation of the word ninja.

When you get around to thinking of the word 'ninja' in the old style Japanese way instead of the western (or modern Japanese) way is when you will see there are plenty of ninja around the world, and why Hatsumi and Tanemura make such statements. The problems dissapear.

Quote:

You're a history major, you should know better. This grandmaster is a tertiary source.

This is wrong through and through. These grandmasters hold ALL of the scholarly reliable books that foreign historians have used to investigate the history of the ninja. Another problem with this logic is the fact that a very large portion of ninjutsu is kuden only. Not transmitted in scrolls, never recorded in history books. However when the information is compared to what was written down, it checks out accurately. This speaks for the credibility of the grandmasters, in my opinion.

To me this is kind of like hearing the designer of the A6M Reisentoki is not a reliable source of information on the capabilities of the aircraft, and that consulting the manual provided for the aircraft is better. Sorry, no.

By the way, what the particular article you quoted failed to mention is the ninja throughought the late edo and meiji periods, I think he did that more to make a point about the end of the large scale warfare in Japan that necessitated constant use of ninja, more than anything else. Ninja operated as a police force and as ambassidors throughout the edo period and parts of the meiji period in which many wound up fighting for both sides of rebellions that sprang up during the meiji period.

At one point the number of practicioners were very very small during the showa period, we actually don't know how small, but they certainly did not cease to exist, and all of the souke prior to Takamatsu took part in real warfare within Japan in some form or another. Takamatsu is reputed to have engaged a very large number of duels and there are many kuden about his dealings in asia throughout the Pacific War. If the arts went extinct during those times that wouldn't be very nin would it, considering the abundant availability of war zones to litmus test in.

And when you consider that a lot of the actual 'ninjutsu' skills (such as infiltrating enemy camps, disrupting intelligence efforts, etc) have survived to this time it is likely that these techniques were employed during that time. And they continue to be employed to this very day. For example someone like John Lindsay who is highly ranked in the Genbukan but serves in Iraq as part of an independent security team and protecting various targets. If that does not qualify as a ninja I do not know what does. Tokugawa and the Iga ninja escort ring a bell?

The grandmasters of these traditions didn't just get there by being stupid. Less than 6 people, all having menkyo kaiden in arts containing ninjutsu are responsible for almost all of the knowledge on the subject, including historically accepted knowledge. They know the subject inside and out. More than you, Lane, or I, or everyone on this forum combined. So if they are calling themselves ninja does it not make a strong point about whether or not ninja still exist?

There's really nothing left to argue about it- you can argue with the grandmasters statements if you'd like, but when people start doing that, that is when I take a step back. Have fun, but I'm sorry, I cannot participate in that.

Hatsumi refers to Takamatsu as "the last REAL ninja". Your reference to the video from Budomart says it clearly, it's not my fault you didn't get the translation right. Here is the right up on the video from Budomart.

Quote: This DVD which title means: "Takamatsu Toshitsugu, the last real Ninja" is based upon a black and white movie filmed in the 60s and showing Takamatsu Sensei teaching Hatsumi Sensei in a park.

You are holding on to some dream of being a ninja. There are no ninja. There are people who use there training to aid their profession but that doesn't make them ninja. The skills you refer to (infiltrating enemy camps etc.) are not exclusive to ninjutsu. There are professions that employ similar skills to those used by ninja but that doesn't make them ninja. John Lindsey was doing convoy escorts the same as various military police forces, does that make them all ninja? No. What is it you think constitutes being a ninja? Do they have to be a practitioner of ninjutsu and employ that training in a combat situation? If so them Hatsumi can't be a ninja due to the fact that he has no real combat experience outside the dojo.

There are no more ninja. The closest you will come today are the select few who train in ninjutsu and also happen to have a profession that may allow them to exploit some of their training.

Quote: To me this is kind of like hearing the designer of the A6M Reisentoki is not a reliable source of information on the capabilities of the aircraft, and that consulting the manual provided for the aircraft is better. Sorry, no.

This statement just doesn't fit, as Hatsumi and Tanemura didn't invent ninjutsu. Additionally NO system of ninjutsu has been verified as koryu. There are koryu systems present in the Bujinkan and the Genbukan but none of them are ninjutsu. You can stamp your feet all you want and proclaim your are correct but until you can provide some kind of proof from a reliable academic source then it is all talk. Just because YOU say Hatsumi refers to himself as a ninja doesn't mean he is. I've never heard anyone but you make this claim.

_________________________
Enjoy life while you can, you never know when things will change.

Guess Hatsumi's a liar then. Oh well! The fact that Hatsumi himself says he is a ninja, quite often, is enough for me. I used John Lindsay as an example beacuse a description of his situation probably best fits the stereotype of a genin ninja, which is most people think of when they hear the word ninja.

I wonder how much actual fighting Momochi Sandayu did. Hmmmm... Could be that it's best just to accept he's a ninja. He is a grandmaster of the ninjutsu traditions afterall.. Maybe he knows a little more about what he is or isn't than we do.

By the way, I have no misconceptions about what I am, I am certainly not a ninja, even though you may want to believe I think I am (That would make it convenient to destroy all my arguments). I am just a martial artist that takes a strong interest in researching the subject deeply.

Unfortunately, it is budomart's translation to English which is wrong, not mine. The kanji used for the word jissen on the box have no other meaning than 'actual fighting' or 'combat'. There is no other translation with a different meaning for that kanji. Not 'last real' not 'true line' not anything. Take a very good look at the kanji then find them in a kanji dictionary. Here are the kanji (once again) as they are written on the cover of the video; http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9540/saigo7le.jpg

If you don't have one, you can use this online dictionary, type jissen, check the 'romaji' box, and look at the first kanji in the listings. These kanji match the ones on the box, and there is absolutely no other translation that can be had from those kanji. Any translation other than 'Last Combat Ninja' or 'Last Actual Fighting Ninja' are wrong.

As for ninjutsu ryuha being koryu, I really don't care anymore to be honest.. I long ago gave up the need to use the age of these arts as a shield for their effectiveness.

But for the record, Dr. Karl Friday seems to think the arts are probably as old as they claim (including gyokko ryu and togakure ryu), but simply lack the kind of documentation needed to prove it. And that's not surprising, not much survives for 1,000 years, especially given the secrecy that surrounded the arts for such a long period of time. Koryu.com is not a lot more than a small gossip group of martial friends and amateur historians that like to pat eachother on the back. They also took a negative view toward ninjutsu and bujinkan in particular because a lot of bujinkan members have displayed very hostile behavior toward them. They finally just got tired of it, hence their current position on the issue.

>I've never heard anyone but you make this claim. <

How is this relevant to anything I have said. Hatsumi said it, not me. Common sense would dictate that if a person is soke of multiple ryuha focused -only- on ninjutsu, he would be considered a ninja. And when he calls himself a ninja that would generally make it a topic closed for debate.

Quote: This is wrong through and through. These grandmasters hold ALL of the scholarly reliable books that foreign historians have used to investigate the history of the ninja. Another problem with this logic is the fact that a very large portion of ninjutsu is kuden only. Not transmitted in scrolls, never recorded in history books. However when the information is compared to what was written down, it checks out accurately. This speaks for the credibility of the grandmasters, in my opinion.

So Hatsumi got his knowledge from a person, who got their knowledge from another person.

That's one reason why he's a tertiary source.

Second reason:

In one of my classes we were discussing what are our sources for ancient Rome. Here's what we came up with:

Primary Sources:

Archaeology, coins, weapons, pottery, inscriptions.

Secondary Sources:

Literary Works and transmissions

Why?Bias of the author and copy errors are passed down through the generations. It's like "telephone" that ya play as a kid. One person whispers a message to another, and down the line it goes. When it reaches the end, the message the last kid says aloud is completely different from the origiinal message.

So if Hatsumi gained his knowledge from the " scholarly reliable books ", he's still learning from a secondary source, making him a tertiary source.

If any info was passed down by word of mouth before being written down (like Homer's epics), that makes them pretty unreliable indeed, things get changed, garbled, confused, and forgotten.

Talking of Takamatsu:"Only a few people knew that he was in fact the last Soke of the rich tradition of ninjutsu. It is said that his neighbours were amazed when they found out that he was also a ninja."http://uk.geocities.com/bcdojo/takamatsu.htm

Wait, did they just say he was the last ninja?

Hatsumi: "What is a ninja? What is time? You are asking me to define something that by its very nature is not understood. Ninjitsu is based on deception, but it's a lot more than that. It's the use of weapons and the art of concealment, but there's a great deal more to it than throwing stars, and stealth"http://uk.geocities.com/bcdojo/lifeday.htm

If HE can't give a definition of what a ninja is, how can you classify people as one? There has to be some SOLID definition in order to use it as a description.

Quote:

By the way, what the particular article you quoted failed to mention is the ninja throughought the late edo and meiji periods, I think he did that more to make a point about the end of the large scale warfare in Japan that necessitated constant use of ninja, more than anything else. Ninja operated as a police force and as ambassidors throughout the edo period and parts of the meiji period in which many wound up fighting for both sides of rebellions that sprang up during the meiji period.

"In its historical sense, Ninja, similar to samurai, ceased to exist as a social and military group . However, since Ninja were never an officially recognized social group, they could have potentially maintain their identity as such. Nevertheless, their existence was too much dependent on the overall social and military conditions within which they existed ,and to insist that Ninja families and individual warriors continued to operate after the Meiji Restoration would be futile. Just as arguing that soldiers in Japan's modern army are in fact samurai is a baseless argument."

Someone's wrong here....

"It would be reasonable to view the ancient ninja as guerrilla warfare specialist, experts in all aspects of combat and strategy, intelligence gathering and networking, but also seekers of spiritual enlightenment and truth. Ninja were very much spiritual people. The main influences being Shinto (followers regarded their whole world: the rivers, mountains, lakes, and trees, to have their own energy and spirit), Mikkyo (a method for enhancing personal power involving the use of secret words and symbols to focus their energy and intentions toward specific goals) and Shugendo (a method of spiritual self-discovery consisting of subjecting oneself to the harsh weather and terrain of the area in order to draw strength from the earth itself. They would walk through fire, stand beneath freezing waterfalls, and hang over the edges of cliffs in an effort to overcome fear and assume the powers of nature). But ninjutsu was and is a separate philosophy . Ninpo, or the essence of the ninja's outlook, is a physical, emotional, and spiritual method of self-protection from the dangers that confront those on the warrior path to enlightenment."

This says ninja don't exist, but their LEGEND and IDEAS live on, doesn't it?

Quote:As for ninjutsu ryuha being koryu, I really don't care anymore to be honest.. I long ago gave up the need to use the age of these arts as a shield for their effectiveness.

Good, because samurai arts are old too, still effective and practiced today, but there ain't no samurai any more, are there?

You say that just practicing the art does not make you a ninja, fine....

Tyranny and Dictators are old too, doesn't make them effective.

Quote:How is this relevant to anything I have said. Hatsumi said it, not me. Common sense would dictate that if a person is soke of multiple ryuha focused -only- on ninjutsu, he would be considered a ninja. And when he calls himself a ninja that would generally make it a topic closed for debate.

So when a person with a ton of experience in anything says something, topic is closed?

If the Pope declared himself the one and only god, common sense would dictate that the Pope is correct. And when he calls himself a god that would generally make it a topic closed for debate....

Let me ask you this, since you have yet to answer any of my previous questions....

What constitutes being a ninja?

Are the ninpo club members on campus ninja?Are CIA ninja?Are people who practice the traditions and religions of ancient ninja but not the art ninja?Do you have to practice the spiritual side to be a ninja?Who is a ninja, and who isn't?You say ninja is not a definition, but rather a concept...

You said you are not a ninja, so what would you have to do to become one? What did Hatsumi do that you are not?

There obviously has to be some sort of qualification if some people say they are not, and others say they are.

If I sneak into a building, use stealth, or do whatever else they do, but never actaully train in ninjutsu or the other arts, am I a ninja?

If you say that all you have to do is use infiltration tactics and stealth, then 5 yr olds playing hide and seek are ninja.

"Because he said so" doesn't cut it. I don't care how many times a prominent person in whatever says something, it's not believable without PROOF.

Bush is a prominent politician, if he said one day, "I am G. W. Bush, and am the king of politics", by your logic you would believe him simply because he said it.Don't make much sense to me....

We are talking about ninjutsu, in Japan. Almost no records were kept about ninjutsu as we know it other than what is written in bansenshukai, shoninki, ninpiden. Relying only on historical written references would mean the entire ninjutsu arts as we know them are fraudulent.

This has been disproven and there are numerous ancient scrolls depicting techniques and lineage, which can be viewed if you ask nicely, and pictures have been taken of some of them, though that is useless if you don't read Japanese.

If the pope declared himself to be the head of the church, that would be an accurate statement. Hatsumi does not declare himself to be god, he declares himself to be a ninja. He possesses the traits that the word ninja means. Trying to package the word ninja into some kind of predefined concept is a western thing and it's totally wrong, and until you learn to drop the baggage that you're using the word ninja with, you'll never realise why he says he is a ninja.

I don't really get the drift of your posts as they don't really have a lot to do with what the topic is. GW Bush has nothing to do with ninjutsu, nor does the pope, nor does reference to them making outrageous claims.

Hypothetically; Tanemura says: I am a person who is honest. I strive for honesty in all I do. I am interested in everything. I try to learn about all new things I possibly can. This includes the sanjuurokkei. I put great effort into everything I do.

By the definitions he has given on that page I scanned, he is a ninja. By the definitions the bansenshukai gives, he is a ninja. By the definitions written by Momochi Sandayu in the 1500's, he is a ninja. Well then..

Looking at the kanji for the word ninja; he easily qualified just by putting great effort into everything and perservering in all he does. Of course the word has been bastardized since it was imported to the west and now people think the word ninja is something really special and ceased to exist.

While I understand it is perhaps a habit to only trust books as sources, you need to understand that Japanese martial artists were not all writers of encyclopedias.

Especially the people who were practicing highly illegaly throughout the late 1500's to 1700's. To do that would be a bit like driving around in a car with a sign in the back window stating 'I have an outstanding warrant'.

Sometimes it is just best to accept the fact that these 2 men who have more than 100 years of combined experience might actually know what they are talking about. Given the fact that they are responsible for almost all of the English information available on the planet on the subject, maybe you should give them a little more credit than you are.

Though it may be hard to depart from academic research theories, you're going to find it very hard to research many subjects (like this one in particular) in the future if you don't dig deeper and try to understand more than you are doing right now. Start by learning Japanese.

I'd recommend buying a copy of amatsu tatara magazine, as well as the panther productions samurai jujutsu dvd #6, and perhaps a genbukan training manual (Sorry for the genbukan material bias, but the material tends to be very comprehensive and include lineage and detailed explanations).

As it stands your reasoning is rediculous. If learning from books is considered learning from a secondary source, and learning from people is considered learning from a tertiary source, then there's no primary source and the whole art is bs. You are totally stuck in university theory mode and it has nothing to do with the reality of the arts being practiced, nor their history. Using the logic you've given above, pretty much all university research on history is conducted upon 'secondary and tertiary data'. Your professors didn't invent ww2. Some common sense is in order. Sometimes when a certain thing is known to exist, you just need to accept it. In this case the word ninja can simply be researched by dissasembling the kanji. Doing such a thing produces a very similar meaning to what was described on one of the scanned pages in my previous post. Not that difficult to understand.

Why on gods green earth would you want to study an art under someone if you don't even trust them enough to believe them when they say you are a ninja? I don't get it. If you trust them enough to put faith in the techniques to save your life should you need to, then you ought to trust that they can call themselves ninja and it wouldn't be a lie.

If you can't trust your own teachers words then why bother studying the art with him. I don't mean this in a hostile way but it bothers me that so many people disagree with what the grandmasters say and do, and they always disagree on the internet, but despite this they still continue training in the grandmasters arts. Kinda hypocritical, IMO.

I'm going to concentrate on just a few things now and deal with the rest of your post later.

Quote:As it stands your reasoning is rediculous. If learning from books is considered learning from a secondary source, and learning from people is considered learning from a tertiary source, then there's no primary source and the whole art is bs. You are totally stuck in university theory mode and it has nothing to do with the reality of the arts being practiced, nor their history. Using the logic you've given above, pretty much all university research on history is conducted upon 'secondary and tertiary data'. Your professors didn't invent ww2. Some common sense is in order. Sometimes when a certain thing is known to exist, you just need to accept it. In this case the word ninja can simply be researched by dissasembling the kanji. Doing such a thing produces a very similar meaning to what was described on one of the scanned pages in my previous post. Not that difficult to understand.

You know you're right about 1 thing. My professors didn't invent World War II.

We have weapons, inscriptions, archaeology to back up what people say.

Primary sources confirm what biased secondary or tertiary sources claim. People are biased, all your articles, magazines, and videos that you suggest are BIASED, they were made by people who got the info from SOMEWHERE ELSE!

Thucydides wrote about the Peloponnesian Wars in ancient Greece. He participated in them and has first hand knowledge of the events.

He is a secondary source.We believe what he says because there is EVIDENCE supporting what he says. Other sources (from his day) confirm the events he talks about, archaeology confirms what he talks about, weapons, shipwreaks, statues, art, pottery confirm what he talks about.

He is a secondary source, supported by other secondary sources, supported by primary sources. That's what makes him reliable.

A good concrete secondary source would be an inscription written by a ninja in feudal Japan, about what a ninja is. This would be a good start. Another would be something from someone else, written during that time period, not a ninja, writing about what a ninja is.

You use what the GM says (who didn't live in feudal Japan), supported by what is written in websites, the authors of which are biased in favor of your arguements (also didn't live in feudal japan). I believe it is your logic that is flawed my friend...

I want to know where the authors of all these webpages got their info from.

You provided CONTEMORARY written sources, all the "sources" you give come from people who got their knowledge somewhere else. I want to know from what or where that knowledge came from. You also say that there are foreign documents about ninja, all in the posession of the GMs. Too bad, they would have added a lot of weight to your arguements.

Quote:Though it may be hard to depart from academic research theories, you're going to find it very hard to research many subjects (like this one in particular) in the future if you don't dig deeper and try to understand more than you are doing right now.

What am I not understanding? You are giving as "evidence" the words that people are saying or writing, that's testimony dude, not proof. All written sources are biased, they were written by people. If there is EVIDENCE to back up what they say, then they are reliable. I'm sorry, but I don't rely on blind faith to research things, hence why I'm asking you constantly to provide evidence other than, "this person says".

I don't deny the Gms' knowledge and experience on ninja, just as I don't deny my professors' knowledge on Rome and Greece. The difference is my professors are supported by archaeological evidece, or some other type of proof. You rely on what other people say, and use what one GM says to back what the other GM says. Two wrongs don't make a right! Where's your EVIDENCE?

And frankly, religion is the only subject I know of that doesn't have some sort of primary source to back up some of their claims, but that's why it's called "faith".

Quote:While I understand it is perhaps a habit to only trust books as sources, you need to understand that Japanese martial artists were not all writers of encyclopedias.

I don't rely on what books say, I rely on what the evidence says.

The concept of being a Spartan lives on to this day. We know what they thought being a Spartan meant because of what they themselves wrote, what other people wrote about them (same time period, like Athens' works on Sparta), and what the EVIDENCE tells us (the huge differences between the city of Athens and the city of Sparta, shields with inscriptions written on them, statues, art, transcripts written by them, pottery, etc).

You use what the GMs and a bunch of websites tells you about ninjas as evidence instead, where are the scrolls, where are the other opinions from say, common folk, samurai, the Shogun Daiyamos, foreign people living in the day, ANYTHING for pete's sake!?

The art isn't BS if there is some EVIDENCE! What someone says, who wasn't there, supported by what someone else says, written well after the period ended, is not fact.

The page you scanned was written by Tanemura, written in a training manual (I am assuming written in feudal Japan?)

If so, this is a great source from someone who actually LIVED in feudal Japan, and was a ninja himself, correct?

And it's still a secondary source, a great one, but still not primary. He is biased, and no matter how hard one tries to be unbiased, it is impossible. If you have other sources like this, don't hold out! They will support each other and add strength to your argument, especially if you have sources written by people who were not ninja.

I posess all 3 traits that the article mentioned (look how much energy I put forth debating with you, lol ). I've never studied ninjutsu or ninpo, and don't believe in any spiritual aspect of it, but based on what you gave, I am a ninja.

You do not study any of the sanjuurokkei, nor do you understand bumon, shumon, tenmon or chimon. Thus you cannot be a ninja. Someone who had studied all of these things (which are listed on the page I scanned), that are encompassed within the 3 traits he lists, could then be considered a ninja.

"Primary resources provide firsthand evidence of historical events. They are generally unpublished materials such as manuscripts, photographs, maps, artifacts, audio and video recordings, oral histories, postcards, and posters. In some instances, published materials can also be viewed as primary materials for the period in which they were written. In contrast, secondary materials, such as textbooks, synthesize and interpret primary materials. Following are excerpts and examples from a variety of explanations provided by institutions that utilize primary resources.

The Library of Congress' Learning Page is part of the American Memory site, which is designed to help teachers, students and life-long learners use the American Memory digital collections from the Library of Congress. Primary sources are defined as "actual records that have survived from the past, such as letters, photographs, articles of clothing." In contrast, secondary sources are accounts of the past created by people writing about events sometime after they happened.

For example, your history textbook is a secondary source. Someone wrote most of your textbook long after historical events took place. Your textbook may also include some primary sources, such as direct quotes from people living in the past or excerpts from historical documents.

People living in the past left many clues about their lives. These clues include both primary and secondary sources in the form of books, personal papers, government documents, letters, oral accounts, diaries, maps, photographs, reports, novels and short stories, artifacts, coins, stamps and many other things. Historians call all of these clues together the historical record."

The Ohio Historical Society defines primary sources as a "source created by people who actually saw or participated in an event and recorded that event or their reactions to it immediately after the event. In contrast, secondary source is defined as a "source created by someone either not present when the event took place or removed by time from the event."

If so, I'm still correct and this is a secondary source, but I was slightly wrong in the beginning. I can see where this would be considered a manuscript type artifact, and therefore would be a primary source.

My blurb about Thucydides could be viewed as the same, primary or secondary resource.

At least now you should be able to see why all the sites, the books by Hatsumi, etc are NOT primary sources....hopefully.....